From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57B431851 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2015 09:06:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-yk0-f177.google.com (mail-yk0-f177.google.com [209.85.160.177]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3FA712E for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2015 09:06:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ykdz138 with SMTP id z138so72701029ykd.2 for ; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 02:06:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Cof9JcDGM5HsAWUo5UqUmBfS/BqaLomnuNG6hkXpvBc=; b=i5AkA2xO+RzkHd+TD6pOHXdXapUzRt5L4BaO9lXN6suueDaa4pslplor8rozSwOqwt c7stVwiVD+AApszBn1Zn/RE3wBKgG6UiAX8hwUY3PrFXa2wsnN5QVdygPZay4ip+91uq KojHTeqgqqAVZqMfGiW+1zZ0TRRKg/A3Gl3SvbVKmIHt7aDrJd5r1aGIcWU7pBE9QiEz kXBJYpMCoIhDglK0UuyLgyUMiSVMSkfoYGlrHV9ZzoGj6qS8ph6YoUQHlAV7eCeNGfcC SDtBJSiEUxObKUg3RLDU6EY13I9PqmO7bdFcSD+ywI0LJ+pusjs4TVR9xp+qMOormNQy kEdw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnN8ESm3dmvbtp6M+BK+DIFY7hkffASxMxUseYX8tvRvSbSa1F+lyYasCXuKVb22lLY6TYy MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.170.173.1 with SMTP id p1mr6814908ykd.101.1443690359807; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 02:05:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.13.220.65 with HTTP; Thu, 1 Oct 2015 02:05:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20151001085058.GA10010@amethyst.visucore.com> References: <20150924112555.GA21355@amethyst.visucore.com> <201509301757.44035.luke@dashjr.org> <20151001085058.GA10010@amethyst.visucore.com> Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 11:05:59 +0200 Message-ID: From: Marcel Jamin To: "Wladimir J. van der Laan" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ac04410168e0521075b57 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin development mailing list Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core 0.12.0 release schedule X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2015 09:06:01 -0000 --001a113ac04410168e0521075b57 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Any particular reason bitcoin versioning doesn't follow the SemVer spec? 2015-10-01 10:50 GMT+02:00 Wladimir J. van der Laan via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>: > On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 05:57:42PM +0000, Luke Dashjr wrote: > > On Thursday, September 24, 2015 11:25:56 AM Wladimir J. van der Laan via > > bitcoin-dev wrote: > > > 2015-12-01 > > > ----------- > > > - Feature freeze > > > > Where is "Consensus freeze"? Shouldn't this be put off until after the HK > > workshop in case a hardfork is decided on? Or have we de-coupled it from > the > > release process entirely anyway (since old versions need an update for it > > too)? > > In principle, "feature freeze" means that any large code changes will no > longer go into 0.12, unless fixing critical bugs. > > I'm not keen on postponing 0.12 for such reasons - after the HK workshop > I'm sure that it will take some development/testing/review before code > makes it into anything. Apart from that there's a good point to decouple > consensus changes from Bitcoin Core major releases. > > We've seen lot of release date drift due to "this and this change needs to > make it in" in the past, that was a major reason to switch to a time-based > instead of feature-based release schedule. > > We can always do a 0.12.1. > > Wladimir > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --001a113ac04410168e0521075b57 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Any particular reason bitcoin versioning doesn't follo= w the SemVer spec?

2015-10-01 10:50 GMT+02:00 Wladimir J. van der Laan via bitcoin-= dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 05:57:42PM += 0000, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> On Thursday, September 24, 2015 11:25:56 AM Wladimir J. van der Laan v= ia
> bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > 2015-12-01
> > -----------
> > - Feature freeze
>
> Where is "Consensus freeze"? Shouldn't this be put off u= ntil after the HK
> workshop in case a hardfork is decided on? Or have we de-coupled it fr= om the
> release process entirely anyway (since old versions need an update for= it
> too)?

In principle, "feature freeze" means that any large code changes = will no longer go into 0.12, unless fixing critical bugs.

I'm not keen on postponing 0.12 for such reasons - after the HK worksho= p I'm sure that it will take some development/testing/review before cod= e makes it into anything. Apart from that there's a good point to decou= ple consensus changes from Bitcoin Core major releases.

We've seen lot of release date drift due to "this and this change = needs to make it in" in the past, that was a major reason to switch to= a time-based instead of feature-based release schedule.

We can always do a 0.12.1.

Wladimir
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--001a113ac04410168e0521075b57--